Ana Franco-Sagastume v. William Barr ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1054
ANA MARIA FRANCO-SAGASTUME; C.R.G.F.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 21, 2020 Decided: September 2, 2020
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luis C. Diaz, LAW OFFICES OF LUIS C. DIAZ, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
Director, Micah Engler, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ana Maria Franco-Sagastume and her minor son petition for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen and rescind the previously entered
in absentia orders of removal. We deny the petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(3) (2020); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). The “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with
extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works
to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.”
Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary
to law.” Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted).
After considering the Petitioners’ arguments, we conclude that the Board did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the Petitioners’ appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2